Allowed

Saarthak Gupta v. Goa State Pollution Control Board

NGT10 Apr 2026IA No. 196/2026 in Appeal No. 71/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Pune Bench, without delving into merits, rectified clerical and typographical errors in its earlier order regarding a noise monitoring case involving the Goa SPCB. A corrected order was passed quashing the previous directions. The impugned order was stayed pending return.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.03.2026 is substituted with a corrected version, quashing the directions to pay Rs.1,20,000/- and leave bank guarantee. The stay on the order is maintained pending return of notices

Saarthak Gupta vs Goa State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Mentioned Matter

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

I.A. NO.196 OF 2026 (WZ) IN APPEAL NO.71 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶6

Saarthak Gupta

¶7

…..Applicant/Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Goa State Pollution Control Board

¶10

….Respondent

¶11

Date of hearing: 10.04.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant/Appellant

¶14

: Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, Advocate along-with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

I.A. NO.196 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶17

This I.A. has been moved by the applicant/appellant with the prayer that modification/correction be done in the order dated 13.03.2026, passed by this Tribunal in the present appeal, in terms of para no.9 from subclause (a) to (f).

¶18

In the body of the above I.A., it is mentioned that after perusal of the uploaded order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the present appeal, the applicant and his Advocate noticed certain glaring discrepancies/mistakes, which are reproduced in para no.9 of this I.A. from sub-para (a) to (f).

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

In para no.1 of the order dated 13.03.2026, it is recorded “….several directions have been issued, involving direction of paying a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for non-transmitting noise monitoring data for four days as well as leaving bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/”. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that in this para “leaving bank guarantee” is an apparent typographical mistake, it ought to be “ giving bank guarantee ” .

¶21

In para no.2 of the said order, in the 2^nd line, it has been wrongly recorded “…..the Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.2026 was issued to Bank…” . It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that there is no Bank involved in the present appeal, therefore, instead of “Bank”, it ought to be “ Appellant ”. Further, in this para, in 6^th line, it has been wrongly recorded “This notice was responded to the appellant by their letter dated 13.01.2026…..” . It is urged by him that in place of this line, the same ought to be “ This notice was responded to by the appellant by their letter dated 30.01.2026 …..”. Further, in this para, in 15^th line, it has been wrongly recorded “….vendor has also responded and saying that he was going to resolve the problem within six month” . It is urged by him that in place of this line, the same ought to be “ …vendor has also responded saying that he was going to resolve the problem as a priority ” and not within six months.

¶22

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that when the order dated 13.03.2026 was being passed by this Tribunal in the present appeal, the same was admitted, but no such recording is made in the said uploaded order.

¶23

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that this Tribunal was pleased to actually record in the order dated 13.03.2026 that the impugned order

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, while in the said order, it has been wrongly recorded “…the impugned order shall remain be maintained”.

¶26

We are convinced with the above argument of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the above-mentioned errors need to be rectified in the order dated 13.03.2026, because the same was dictated in open Court, but the said order has been wrongly transcribed by the concerned P.S. Therefore, we direct the learned Assistant Registrar of this Tribunal to call for an explanation from the official concerned as to why the abovementioned errors have been committed on her part in the order dated 13.03.2026. This explanation shall be submitted before us within a week from the date of uploading of this order.

¶27

Simultaneously, we direct that the above corrections be made in the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the present appeal, as prayed by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. In order to incorporate these amendments, it would be appropriate for us that a fresh order be passed, incorporating therein all the said corrections and that the same is being passed as below:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by respondent no.1- Goa State Pollution Control Board, thereby several directions have been issued, involving direction of paying a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for non-transmitting noise monitoring data for four days as well as giving bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-.

¶30

The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.2026 was issued to appellant, alleging

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

that the online noise monitoring data for 01.10.2025 and 02.10.2025 and thereafter of 15.12.2025 and 17.12.2025 (four days in all), was not transmitted to the respondent. This notice was responded to by the appellant by their letter dated 30.01.2026, which is annexed at page nos. 58-59 of the paper book, explaining that the noise monitoring data with respect to dates 15.12.2025 and 17.12.2025 were already available and as regards the non-availability of noise monitoring data related to 01.10.2025 and 02.10.2025, it was explained that the same could not be fetched due to a technical malfunction of the noise monitoring equipment, regarding which immediate communication was made to the respondent and the vendor through e-mail dated 02.10.2025, which is annexed at page nos.62 to 63 of the paper book and vendor has also responded saying that he was going to resolve the problem as a priority. So, it is urged that the impugned order needs to be set aside.

¶33

In view of above arguments, we admit this appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant has effected service on respondent on his own and service affidavit has been filed. We take the same on record.

¶35

We find that learned counsel for the appellant has also filed I.A No.138/2026 praying for stay of the impugned order during pendency of this appeal.

¶36

We direct the Registry to issue notice to the respondent on the main appeal as well as in the I.A., returnable within 04(four) weeks. Till then, the impugned order shall remain stayed.

¶37

Appellant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondent by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/WhatsApp., and submit service affidavit within one week.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Appellant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondent by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/WhatsApp., and submit service affidavit within one week.

¶40

Appellant is also directed to supply copy of the appeal and relevant documents to the respondent within a week.

¶41

Respondent is directed to submit their reply affidavit within four weeks through e-filing and also circulate the same to the appellant by available e-mail.

¶42

Rejoinder, if any, is directed to be submitted within one week thereafter.

¶43

Put up this matter for consideration on 23^rd June, 2026.

¶44

The above quoted order from para nos.9 to 20 shall be read as the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the present appeal in place of the earlier order passed on 13.03.2026.

¶45

I.A. NO.196 OF 2026 (WZ) stands disposed of.

¶46

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶47

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶48

April 10, 2026 I.A. NO.196 OF 2026 (WZ) IN APPEAL NO.71 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Saarthak Gupta v. Goa State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saarthak Gupta v. Goa State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Evelin Murugatham vs the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Climate Change and Forests

Rasikh Rasool Bhat vs Government of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary

Sri. B. Raghupathy vs Union of India

Joe Fernandez vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mr. Rashid Noor Khan vs the State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Munidei Majhi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Represented by Its Secretary

Other vs Other

Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

News Item Titled No Permission Provided for Use of Chemicals in Cleaning Water Bodies: Mpcb Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 23.02.2024 vs Pune Muncipal Corporation

News Item Titled No Permission Provided for Use of Chemicals in Cleaning Water Bodies: Mpcb Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 23.02.2024 vs Pune Muncipal Corporation

Kedar Dattatray Gurav vs Ichalkaranji Agro Foods

Pravinsing Arjun Shedgaonkar vs M/S Golden Globe Hotels Private Limited

Shakti Plastic Industries vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Jitender Gautam Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board